Environmental Protection who expressed displeasure at the jingo and who otherwise had been
close to her. Under section 10 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, moral rights
include the right to seek relief in respect of any distortion, alteration or modification of the work.
At the hearing the song was played and I also taken the opportunity to listen to it again when
considering this judgment. It is surprising that the Defendant‘s Counsel submitted in the
alternative that the advertisement jingle was a modification and was not original to the Plaintiff.
At page 5 of his written submission and with reference to an analysis of the content of the
advertisement jingle he submitted that:
―In light of the foregoing, it is the defence‘s submission that the song and the Defendants‘
jingle are significantly and noticeably different in content, style, structure and time... and
the extract is not an exact copy of the song.‖
Further on he submitted that:
―To this extent, the Defendant‘s jingle is creative, transformative and entitled to
copyright protection on its own right.‖
However the song was played throughout the jingle. Its volume was up at the beginning and end
of the advertisement jingle and its thematic content was effectively used for appropriateness to
the Defendant‘s message. Lastly in the middle the volume was turned down to allow the
Defendant‘s verbal message to be heard while the Plaintiff‘s song played in the background. In
the premises the Plaintiffs moral rights were infringed and the Plaintiff would be entitled to relief
under section 10 (2) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act. Relief includes relief by way
of compensation for injury to her style or intended use. The displeasure of Hon Maria
Mutagamba who talked to the Plaintiff proves the Plaintiffs point and the fact that an author has
the moral right to determine whether the work reflects her view and to withdraw it if not is also
relevant. Where the work is distorted by another person‘s action the copyright owner is entitled
to seek relief for the tort of infringement of her moral rights. The tort of infringement of property
rights attracts damages.
In this case the Defendant is a non-profit making organisation and proved that it did not make
any profit from the use of the Plaintiff‘s song "let's go green". The word ―profit‖ should not be
restricted to commercial gain. The defendant achieved its objectives of conveying the message
effectively and thereby benefitted from the song. The benefit does not have to be in money kind.
The song was broadcast in several FM stations and according to the Plaintiff it was played for a
period of about two weeks. DW1 on cross examination and in her witness statement in chief did
not rebut this evidence. The use of the song could have been paid for but the way it was used and
presented was without the Plaintiff‘s consent.
The only evidence on how much the Plaintiff used to earn is that PW1 testified that she was paid
£3000 by the British Council at the launch (commissioning) of the song. Furthermore, the